Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . Narayan Diwakar Etc. (Ram Nagar Cghs) on 22 May, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH.R P PANDEY; SPECIAL JUDGE-01 (CBI)
ROHINI COURTS:DELHI
CBI CASE No.50/08
CBI Vs. NARAYAN DIWAKAR ETC. (RAM NAGAR CGHS)
RC BDI/2005/E/0016/CBI/BS&FC/DELHI
U/S 120 r/w section 419,420,465,467,468,471 PC ACT
Date of filing charge sheet : 09.12.05
Reserved for Order : 07.05.12
Date of Order : 22.05.12
Case ID No. : 02404R0437122006
ORDER ON CHARGE:
1.Arguments advanced by Ld.Public Prosecutor and Ld. counsels for Accused No.2 Jitender Singh Sharma, accused No.3 Raman Kumar Verma, accused No.4 Uday Shankar Bhatnagar, accused No.5 Prahlad Kumar Thirwani, accused No.6 Raj Kumar Samuel and accused No.7 Ashutosh Pant have been heard and written arguments filed on CBI CASE NO.50/08 Page No.1 of 49 CBI VS.NARAYAN DIWAKAR (RAM NAGAR CGHS) behalf of accused No.1 Narayan Diwakar (in the form of composite written submissions on charge and his pending applications u/s 227 Cr.PC for discharge and lack of specific/proper complaint in CGHS cases) and written arguments of accused/J.S.Sharma, Raj Kumar Samuel and Ashutosh Pant have also been perused along with charge sheet, statements of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.PC and documents relied upon by CBI.
2. Briefly, the prosecution case is that in the year 2003, Narayan Diwakar, then RCS, Jitender Singh Sharma, AR, Raman Kumar Verma-Dealing Assistant, P.K.Thirwani-Sr.Auditor, Uday Shanker Bhatnagar, then Grade-III, Raj Kumar Samuel and Ashutosh Pant entered into a criminal conspiracy to revive Ram Nagar Cooperative Group Housing Society. In furtherance of the said conspiracy, a letter dated 01.11.03 having forged signatures of Sh.Aditya, shown as President of the society, was received in the office of RCS for cancellation of winding order dated 13.11.79 and approval of the list of members. Said letter was CBI CASE NO.50/08 Page No.2 of 49 CBI VS.NARAYAN DIWAKAR (RAM NAGAR CGHS) put up by Raman Kumar Verma, vide his notings dated 12.11.03 for opening a new file, since original file of the society was not traceable. J.S.Sharma approved the noting of Raman Kumar Verma, without raising any question as to how file went missing and who was responsible for it.
3. On 27.11.03, Raman Kumar Verma recorded a note proposing for reconstruction of missing file, with the help of President/Secretary of the society, with whom copies of registration certificate, bye-laws, audit reports etc. were available. Said proposal was approved by J.S.Sharma and Narayan Diwakar, without raising any query as to how file went missing, who was responsible for it and genuineness of the society. Thereafter, Narayan Diwakar appointed U.S.Bhatnagar as Inspecting Officer to examine and verify the records of the society. U.S.Bhatnagar submitted a false inspection report to the effect that he visited office of the society, met Aditya Vikram, President of the society and verified the records. Raman Kumar Verma put up note dated 23.01.04 before J.S.Sharma, wherein it was mentioned that inspecting CBI CASE NO.50/08 Page No.3 of 49 CBI VS.NARAYAN DIWAKAR (RAM NAGAR CGHS) officer had obtained copies of unaudited accounts of the society, since 30.06.88, minutes of AGM dated 16.02.72, list of members of the society, MC meetings dated 12.07.79, 21.09.79 (Spl.GBM) and last election/AGM held on 15.09.03, copies of registration certificate, bye-laws etc. and had placed the same on the file. J.S.Sharma marked the file to Reader of RCS, who had placed it before the Registrar and the latter had also gone through it. Thereafter, a letter was written to President of the society with directions to appear before RCS on 10.02.04 alongwith original records of the society. However, the file was called by Narayan Diwakar on 03.02.04, without assigning any reasons, on which date he dishonestly and fraudulently showed presence of Sh.Ashok Kumar, Secretary of the society, in his order sheet and directed J.S.Sharma to conduct spot verification of members on random basis and to submit his report on or before 05.02.04. However, Raman Kumar Verma and J.S.Sharma dishonestly/ fraudulently showed in noting dated 05.02.04 that spot verification of some members on random basis has been made. On 05.02.04 Narayan Diwakar passed a detailed order , falsely mentioned CBI CASE NO.50/08 Page No.4 of 49 CBI VS.NARAYAN DIWAKAR (RAM NAGAR CGHS) therein that winding up order passed by Dy.Registrar was not in accordance with the rules. He also recorded in his order that there is nothing on record that Dy.Registrar was competent to pass order of winding up. Thus, vide his order dated 06.02.04, Narayan Diwakar revived the society in connivance with aforesaid officials of RCS and others. P.K.Thirwani prepared false audit report of society. Raj Kumar Samuel submitted false and forged documents of the society and Ashutosh Pant had also forged affidavits of members of the society and thus contributed to revival of the society.
4. During the course of arguments on charge the Ld. Public Prosecutor taken the court through documents relied upon by CBI and statements of witnesses recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC and submitted that there is sufficient evidence to frame charge against all the accused persons.
5. Accused No.1 and Ld. Counsels for remaining accused CBI CASE NO.50/08 Page No.5 of 49 CBI VS.NARAYAN DIWAKAR (RAM NAGAR CGHS) persons have raised certain legal issues regarding the registration of case against them and investigation by CBI. Accused No.1 has also filed an application u/s 227 of Cr.PC seeking his discharge and made additional submissions on the issue of non-existence of specific and proper complaint for registration of this case. Besides him, accused J.S.Sharma by filing separate application, has also prayed for dropping the proceedings against him on the similar grounds. Accused No.1 Narayan Diwakar has filed only the written arguments. Written arguments have also been filed on behalf of accused J.S.Sharma(A.2), Raj Kumar Samuel (A.6) and accused Ashutosh Pant (A.7) besides oral arguments on charge through their Ld. Counsels. Since the legal issues agitated by accused J.S.Sharma and Aushtosh Pant are same as agitated by accused Narayan Diwakar, therefore, they are being considered simultaneously, while dealing with arguments advanced by accused Narayan Diwakar.
6. It has been argued by him that CBI had illegally investigated CBI CASE NO.50/08 Page No.6 of 49 CBI VS.NARAYAN DIWAKAR (RAM NAGAR CGHS) this case and the court should not proceed with the trial as a mute spectator and be party to the illegal investigation. He has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in R R Kishore Vs. CBI, 2006 VIII AD(Delhi) 545 in which it was held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that if no objection is taken at the initial stage and trial proceeds then the same can be set aside only if it has resulted in miscarriage of justice. It was further observed by Delhi High Court that if the illegal investigation is brought to the notice of trial court at the initial stage then the court ought not to proceed with the trial and direct re-investigation so that defect in investigation is cured. It has been argued by accused/Narayan Diwakar (A-1) that the CBI has launched an illegal and unfair prosecution against him. This court does not find any illegality in the investigation of the case and law does not confer a right on an accused to seek the direction for re- investigation of a case.
7. It has been further argued by accused/Narayan Diwakar (A-1) that he being Registrar of Co-operative Societies was acting as quasi CBI CASE NO.50/08 Page No.7 of 49 CBI VS.NARAYAN DIWAKAR (RAM NAGAR CGHS) judicial officer u/s 3 of DCS Act, 1972 and, therefore, order, if any passed by him, could not be questioned in any court of law on whatsoever grounds. He has argued that as per Section 94 of the DCS Act, he had all the powers of civil court and hence as per Section 95 of the same Act, no suit or prosecution or any other legal proceedings would lie against him or any person subordinate to him in respect of anything done in good faith or purported to have been done under this Act.
8. In this respect, I find that role assigned to the applicant in the charge sheet is that he, in conspiracy with other accused persons, including his subordinate officials and private public person dishonestly and fraudulently revived Ram Nagar CGHS on the basis of forged and fabricated documents submitted by accused/Raj Kumar Samuel (A.6) and that he fraudulently mentioned in his revival order that winding up order, which was passed by the then Dy.Registrar, was not in accordance with laid down procedure, as the reasons for winding up of the society were not adequate for initiating such an extreme step, despite the fact that the CBI CASE NO.50/08 Page No.8 of 49 CBI VS.NARAYAN DIWAKAR (RAM NAGAR CGHS) file in which winding up order was passed, was not traceable. Thus, his acts, as alleged in charge sheet do not amount to doing the same in good faith, therefore, his claim for any protection is not tenable.
9. It has been further argued by accused no.1 that no offence is made out u/s 13 of the PC Act as the prosecution has to prove that he had accepted either any bribe or any pecuniary advantage which is neither shown in the charge sheet nor statement of any of the prosecution witnesses recorded by IO. He has relied upon judgment cited as State of M P Vs.Sheetla Sahai & Ors., (2009) 3 RCR (Crl.) 835, wherein while awarding the tender, the accused public servants had allegedly put the Government to the loss to the extent of Rs. 1,02,46,200/-. However,Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the said award of contract was the need of the hour and that besides the fact that the accused had caused wrongful gain to the third party, section 13(1)(d) of PC Act shall still be not attracted as it requires that the award of the contract, given by the accused public servant was by abusing his position CBI CASE NO.50/08 Page No.9 of 49 CBI VS.NARAYAN DIWAKAR (RAM NAGAR CGHS) as a public servant. In Sheetla Sahai's case (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court, after going through the facts of the case, had observed that decision of the accused therein at the relevant time, was rather in the interest of State. But in the present case, I find that the land was sought to be allotted to the society having fictitious members whereas the society had allegedly been liquidated, which do not show that the act was in the interest of State. Thus the facts of Sheetla Sahai's case could not be related to the facts of the present case and as such the ratio of law propounded by Hon'ble Supreme Court in that case is not applicable to the facts & circumstances of the present case.
10. Accused/Narayan Diwakar (A-1) has also relied upon judgment titled as A Subair Vs. State of Kerala, but I find that the said case was primarily the case of illegal gratification where no demand could be proved. Since instant case is not the case involving illegal gratification, therefore, there is no force in the submission of accused that demand should have been one of the ingredients of the offence alleged CBI CASE NO.50/08 Page No.10 of 49 CBI VS.NARAYAN DIWAKAR (RAM NAGAR CGHS) against him, which is lacking. Thus, he can not claim parity to the accused in A subair's case (supra).
11. The accused has further submitted that CBI has not adhered to the CBI Crime Manual and he has also relied upon judgment cited as Shashi Kant Vs. CBI, AIR 2007 SC 351 and P Sirajudeen Vs. State of Madras, AIR 1971 SC 520, to contend that the Central Government has laid down certain procedures for conducting the investigation including the mode and manner in which the preliminary inquiry should be conducted by CBI which can later on be converted into a regular case as soon as sufficient material becomes available to show that, prima facie, there has been commission of a cognizable offence.
12. It is further argued that as soon as it is decided to register a PE, the SP of CBI will take action to get the PE registration report prepared, which will invariably be vetted by him and it can even be drafted by him in case of important inquiries. It is submitted that in the CBI CASE NO.50/08 Page No.11 of 49 CBI VS.NARAYAN DIWAKAR (RAM NAGAR CGHS) present case, the CBI Crime Manual was not adhered to as neither the approval from the director of CBI was obtained for registration of PE nor the SP of CBI converted the PE into a regular case.
13. In the instant case, the charge sheet shows that pursuance to the directions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, vide order dated 02.08.05 passed in writ petition (Civil) No.10066/04, the CBI conducted a thorough investigation in the matter of 135 Co-operative Group Housing Societies and thereupon the preliminary inquiry was registered and subsequently converted to regular FIR. The charge sheet does not disclose any such deviation by the CBI while registering or investigating the instant case.
14. It has been submitted by accused that requirement of Section 3 of DSPE Act has not been fulfilled by CBI as the offences under DCS Act, 1972 are not at all notified by the Government for investigation by CBI. In this respect, it suffice to observe that the CBI CASE NO.50/08 Page No.12 of 49 CBI VS.NARAYAN DIWAKAR (RAM NAGAR CGHS) accused is not being prosecuted for any offence under the DCS Act and, therefore, there can not be any issue regarding non notification of offences under DCS Act, 1972.
15. Accused/Narayan Diwakar (A-1) has further submitted that the consent of State has not been obtained before commencing the investigation which is violative of Section 6 of DSPE Act.
16. In this respect, I fully agree with the submissions of ld.Special Public Prosecutor for CBI that the issue was answered by Hon'ble High Court in Crl.M C No.2784/07 dated 17.09.07, wherein it was observed as under:-
" The investigation was referred to CBI in this case by the High Court. Once investigation of a case is given by the High Court to CBI under its inherent powers, permission from State Government is not required. High Court is competent enough to refer a matter for investigation to CBI.
Investigation is done by police under Cr.PC. There is no such thing as investigation under Delhi Co-operative Societies Act.CBI CASE NO.50/08 Page No.13 of 49
CBI VS.NARAYAN DIWAKAR (RAM NAGAR CGHS) In fact lot of bungling, corruption and registration of fake societies was found and the entire episode was investigated. Therefore, after investigation, the charge sheet had to be filed by CBI in respect of all those crimes, commission of which was revealed after investigation. It is also settled law that an act of accused may attract offences under different penal provisions and he can be charged under all such penal provisions."
17. In this respect the matter stands finally settled by the Judgment of Constitution bench of Supreme Court in State of West Bengal & Others Vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights CA No.6249-50/2001 decided on 17.02.10 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
44.Thus, having examined the rival contentions in the context of the Constitutional Scheme, we conclude as follows:-
(i) The fundamental rights, enshrined in Part III of the Constitution, are inherent and cannot be extinguished by any Constitutional or Statutory provision. Any law that abrogates or abridges such rights would be violative of the basic structure doctrine. The actual effect and impact of the law on CBI CASE NO.50/08 Page No.14 of 49 CBI VS.NARAYAN DIWAKAR (RAM NAGAR CGHS) the rights guaranteed under Part III has to be taken into account in determining whether or not it destroys the basic structure.
(ii) Article 21 of the Constitution in its broad perspective seeks to protect the persons of their lives and personal liberties except according to the procedure established by law. The said Article in its broad application not only takes within its fold enforcement of the rights of an accused but also the rights of the victim. The State has a duty to enforce the human rights of a citizen providing for fair and impartial investigation against any person accused of commission of a cognizable offence, which may include its own officers. In certain situations even a witness to the crime may seek for and shall be granted protection by the State.
(iii) In view of the constitutional scheme and the jurisdiction conferred on this Court under Article 32 and on the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution the power of judicial review being an integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution, no Act of Parliament can exclude or curtail the powers of the Constitutional Courts with regard to the enforcement of fundamental rights. As a matter of fact, such CBI CASE NO.50/08 Page No.15 of 49 CBI VS.NARAYAN DIWAKAR (RAM NAGAR CGHS) a power is essential to give practicable content to the objectives of the Constitution embodied in Part III and other parts of the Constitution. Moreover, in a federal constitution , the distribution of legislative powers between the Parliament and the State Legislature involves limitation on legislative powers and, therefore, this requires an authority other than the Parliament to ascertain whether such limitations are transgressed. Judicial review acts as the final arbiter not only to give effect to the distribution of legislative powers between the Parliament and the State Legislatures, it is also necessary to show any transgression by each entity. Therefore, to borrow the words of Lord Steyn, judicial review is justified by combination of " the principles of separation of powers, rule of law, the principle of constitutionality and the reach of judicial review" .
(iv) If the federal structure is violated by any legislative action, the Constitution takes care to protect the federal structure by ensuring that Courts act as guardians and interpreters of the Constitution and provide remedy under Articles 32 and 226, whenever there is an attempted violation. In the circumstances, any direction by the Supreme Court or the High Court in exercise of power under Article 32 or 226 to CBI CASE NO.50/08 Page No.16 of 49 CBI VS.NARAYAN DIWAKAR (RAM NAGAR CGHS) uphold the Constitution and maintain the rule of law cannot be termed as violating the federal structure.
(v) Restriction on the Parliament by the Constitution and restriction on the Executive by the Parliament under an enactment, do not amount to restriction on the power of the Judiciary under Article 32 and 226 of the Constitution.
(vi) If in terms of Entry 2 of List II of The Seventh Schedule on the one hand and Entry 2A and Entry 80 of List I on the other, an investigation by another agency is permissible subject to grant of consent by the State concerned, there is no reason as to why, in an exceptional situation, court would be precluded from exercising the same power which the Union could exercise in terms of the provisions of the Statute. In our opinion, exercise of such power by the constitutional courts would not violate the doctrine of separation of powers. In fact, if in such a situation the court fails to grant relief, it would be failing in its constitutional duty.
(vii) When the Special Police Act itself provides that subject to consent by the State, the CBI can take up investigation in relation to the crime which was otherwise within the CBI CASE NO.50/08 Page No.17 of 49 CBI VS.NARAYAN DIWAKAR (RAM NAGAR CGHS) jurisdiction of the State Police, the court can also exercise its constitutional power of judicial review and direct the CBI to take up the investigation within the jurisdiction of the State.
The power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be taken away, curtailed or diluted by Section 6 of the Special Police Act. Irrespective of there being any statutory provision acting as a restriction on the powers of the Courts, the restriction imposed by Section 6 of the Special Police Act on the powers of the Union, cannot be read as restriction on the powers of the Constitutional Courts. Therefore, exercise of power of judicial review by the High Court, in our opinion, would not amount to infringement of the either the doctrine of separation of power or the federal structure.
45. In the final analysis, our answer to the question referred is that a direction by the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to the CBI to investigate a cognizable offence alleged to have been committed within the territory of a State without the consent of that State will neither impinge upon the federal structure of the Constitution nor violate the doctrine of separation of power and shall be valid in law. Being the protectors of civil liberties of the CBI CASE NO.50/08 Page No.18 of 49 CBI VS.NARAYAN DIWAKAR (RAM NAGAR CGHS) citizens, this court and the High Courts have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to protect the fundamental rights, guaranteed by Part III in general and under Article 21 of the Constitution in particular, zealously and vigilantly.
18. Thus, I find that there has been no violation that Section 3 & 6 of DSPE Act by the CBI as claimed by accused/Narayan Diwakar (A.2).
19. It has been submitted by accused/Narayan Diwakar that there was no illegality in the order of setting aside the winding up of the society because as per the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Vikas CGHS Vs. Registrar of Co-operative Societies & Ors. (Civil Writ No.1767/96) and as per Rule 105 of DCS Act, 1972, the winding up proceedings of a society has to be closed within one year from the date of winding up unless the period is extended by Registrar and proviso to Sub Rule 1 of Rule 105 provides that Registrar can extend the period not exceeding six months at time and the extension can only be granted for a CBI CASE NO.50/08 Page No.19 of 49 CBI VS.NARAYAN DIWAKAR (RAM NAGAR CGHS) period of three years. It was observed by Hon'ble High Court that in their view it has to be assumed that the order passed u/s 63 of DCS Act was cancalled and the society continues to exist. Thus, it has been submitted by accused/Narayan Diwakar (A.1) that even without his order the society in question was deemed to be existing and thus there was no impact of revival order passed by him. In the present case, this issue is not in question and in fact the allegations against accused/Narayan Diwakar are very clear that he passed the order of cancellation of winding up of the society in conspiracy with other accused persons for the purpose of obtaining for himself or for private accused persons a valuable thing or pecuniary advange i.e. allotment of land by DDA at cheaper rate, and thus, he abused his position as a public servant without holding any public interest while holding office as a public servant.
20. Accused Narayan Diwakar has also invoked the doctrine of parity. It has been submitted by accused/Narayan Diwakar (A.1) that as per circular No.02/2010 dated 11.03.10, a policy decision was taken by CBI CASE NO.50/08 Page No.20 of 49 CBI VS.NARAYAN DIWAKAR (RAM NAGAR CGHS) CBI clarifying that employees of National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Limited (NAFED) are not public servants under P.C.Act, 1988, hence there would be no requirement of seeking permission of the Government u/s 6 A of DSPE Act, 1946 or sanction of the Government for prosecution u/s 19 of the P.C.Act, 1988. Accused Narayan Diwakar (A.2) was working as a Registrar of Cooperative Societies and he was not an employee of a society registered under DCS Act, hence he or other employees of RCS can not claim parity with employees of NAFED, who may be employees of that society. Thus, I find that none of the legal submission and applications of accused/Narayan Diwakar (A.2), as discussed above, hold any merits, hence dismissed.
21. He has also relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar reported as 1979 Cri.LJ 153, wherein it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while considering the question of framing of charge, the court has the CBI CASE NO.50/08 Page No.21 of 49 CBI VS.NARAYAN DIWAKAR (RAM NAGAR CGHS) undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out and if two views are equally possible and the judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.
22. Accused Ashutosh Pant (A.7) has additionally submitted that Inspector Vishal was not at all empowered and authorized to investigate the present case because as per Section 17 P.C.Act, 1988, no police officer below the rank of Inspector of Police, in cases under DSPE Act, is to investigate the case without an order of a Magistrate. In this respect, it suffice to observe that an application of CBI for permitting SI Vishal to investigate the case was allowed by the then Ld. Spl. Judge, CBI on 04.01.06, is available on record as D-2, which makes it clear that Inspector Vishal, who was then Sub-Inspector was permitted to investigate this matter by the then Ld. Spl.Judge. CBI CASE NO.50/08 Page No.22 of 49
CBI VS.NARAYAN DIWAKAR (RAM NAGAR CGHS)
23. Accused J.S.Sharma has also argued his application for discharge besides addressing arguments on charge. Besides, the legal issues which were raised by accused Narayan Diwakar, he also tried to bring out certain contradictions in the statements of witnesses and raised doubt about their credence. In this respect I find that at the stage of charge the court is not required to meticulously analyse and appreciate the evidence as only a prima facie view has to be formed by the Court. In the subsequent paragraphs we will see his role in view of evidence arrayed by the prosecution to prove the case.
24. Now coming to the factual matrix of the case, the version of CBI, as supported by the oral and documentary evidence arrayed by prosecution to prove the same, is discussed briefly. A letter dated 01.11.03 (D.4(ii)/357) under the forged signatures of one Mr.Aditya shown as President of society was received at RCS office which was first seen by RCS who marked the same to J.R. And then J.R.had marked the CBI CASE NO.50/08 Page No.23 of 49 CBI VS.NARAYAN DIWAKAR (RAM NAGAR CGHS) same to AR (SW) i.e. Accused No.2 Sh.J.S.Sharma. What is apparent from this letter is that the office address of Ram Nagar CGHS has been written as 14-B, Satya Niketan, New Delhi by applying white fluid on the printed address and Sh.Aditya Vikram who has been examined by CBI as PW.86 has denied having signed said letter at point Q.898. The copy of winding up order dated 13.11.79 of Ram Nagar CGHS which was annexed with this letter is D.4(ii)/359 in which the address of Ram Nagar CGHS is shown as D-364, Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi. The name of the liquidator is mentioned as Sh.M.L.Pahuja whereas during investigation it has been revealed that no person in the name of M.L.Pahuja was ever an employee of RCS office, Delhi.
25. The said letter dated 01.11.03 was put up by accused Raman Kumar Verma (A.3) vide his note dated 12.11.03 by opening a new file wherein he mentioned that the original file of the society was not traceable and he sought approval for issuance of a circular to all the zones/branches of RCS for tracing the original file and he also mentioned CBI CASE NO.50/08 Page No.24 of 49 CBI VS.NARAYAN DIWAKAR (RAM NAGAR CGHS) that if no reply is received within a week, it shall be presumed that no such file is lying in the office. The said course of action was approved by accused J.S.Sharma (A.2)(D.4/1) who neither raised any question about missing of file nor fixed up any responsibility for the same on any one.
26. Accused Raman Kumar Verma and J.S.Sharma omitted to take any steps to verify the genuineness of contents of letter dated 01.11.03 moved by the so called President of the society and despite the fact that Ram Nagar CGHS was non functional for a period of 24 years, they hurriedly accepted the contention of the author of the letter particularly in view of the fact that no records were available to RCS office to substantiate as to whether any such society was ever registered with RCS office or not.
27. Thereafter, accused Raman Kumar Verma (A.3) vide his note dated 27.11.03 (D.4/2) proposed to reconstruct the file of the society and requested the President/Secretary of the society to furnish the copies CBI CASE NO.50/08 Page No.25 of 49 CBI VS.NARAYAN DIWAKAR (RAM NAGAR CGHS) of registration certificate, Bye-laws, audit report and other relevant records alongwith original records/correspondence which course of action was approved by accused J.S.Sharma on the same day which was put up to RCS i.e.accused Narayan Diwakar (A.1) through J.R.(SW) (who was on leave on that day) and the RCS had approved the course of action vide his order dated 08.12.03. Accused Narayan Diwakar did not raise any query regarding genuineness of the society and did not inquire as to the steps taken against the official who lost the original file, which prima facie shows that he approved the course of action suggested by accused Raman Kumar Verma (A.3) & J.S.Sharma (A.2) in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy.
28. Accused J.S.Sharma & Raman Kumar Verma had, vide their noting dated 23.12.03 (D.4/3), proposed to appoint Uday Shanker Bhatnagar (A.4) Grade-III Inspector to examine and verify the records of the society which course of action was approved by accused Narayan Diwakar vide his order dated 24.12.03. The order was issued by accused CBI CASE NO.50/08 Page No.26 of 49 CBI VS.NARAYAN DIWAKAR (RAM NAGAR CGHS) J.S.Sharma to U.S.Bhatnagar on 26.12.03 (D.4(ii)/353) directing him to bring out the factual position of the society and to verify the records/documents of the society and submit report at the earliest. It is pertinent to mention that while issuing the order to U.S.Bhatnagar (A.4), accused J.S.Sharma (A.2) had mentioned in his order that the society has informed that the registered office of the society has been shifted from D-364, Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi to 14-B, Satya Niketan, New Delhi, whereas there is nothing on record to show that any communication was received by RCS office from the society in this regard. This strengthens the angle of conspiracy between accused public servants and the private persons who were instrumental in getting the Ram Nagar CGHS revived after such a long gap.
29. Accused U.S.Bhatnagar (A.4) has submitted an inspection report on 23.01.04 (D.4 (ii)/213) vide which he stated that he visited society at 14-B, Satya Niketan, New Delhi on 02.01.04 and met Sh.Aditya Vikram, President of the society who informed him that no CBI CASE NO.50/08 Page No.27 of 49 CBI VS.NARAYAN DIWAKAR (RAM NAGAR CGHS) liquidation order was received by the society from RCS office and he came to know about the same when he visited RCS office to know the status of the society. He also noted that as per the records of the society, the office of society had shifted from D-364, Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi to 14-B, Satya Niketan vide Managing Committee Resolution passed on 12.07.79 approved by Special General Body Meeting held on 21.09.79. He also noted that membership register is complete in all respects and audit of the society was pending since its incorporation and enclosed the copy of unaudited accounts from 16.02.72 to 31.03.03. He noted that proceeding register was complete as last Managing Committee Meeting was held on 09.12.03 and as per records the last elections were held on 14.09.03 as per DCS Rules and all the records were found in the safe custody of Aditya Vikram-President of the society. It is worthwhile to mention that he had shown Sh.Aditya Vikram as President of the society and Sh.Ashok Kumar as Secretary of the society. Sh.Aditya Vikram has been examined by CBI as PW.86 and Sh.Ashok Kumar has been examined as PW.80 and they have denied having ever become member CBI CASE NO.50/08 Page No.28 of 49 CBI VS.NARAYAN DIWAKAR (RAM NAGAR CGHS) of said society and Sh.Aditya Vikram has denied having met any official of RCS at 14-B, Satya Niketan, New Delhi. It is worthwhile to mention that annexures of the inspection report of U.S.Bhatnagar (A.4) have been found in the handwriting of accused Ashutosh Pant (A.7) which has been confirmed by GEQD opinion. Thus, U.S.Bhatnagar, as appointed by the note of accused Nos. 2 & 3 is shown to be in conspiracy with accused Ashutosh Pant- a private person, who has forged the annexures of inspection report of U.S.Bhatnagar (A.4).
30. One Sh.Vijender Solanki (PW.33) has been examined who has stated that he had permitted accused No.6 Raj Kumar to use his address of IInd floor of House No.14, Satya Niketan, New Delhi for use of Ram Nagar CGHS. He has also stated that accused Raj Kumar had informed him that he had used his address with slight modification i.e.instead of number 14 he had used number as 14-B to be the registered office of society.
CBI CASE NO.50/08 Page No.29 of 49
CBI VS.NARAYAN DIWAKAR (RAM NAGAR CGHS)
31. Ld. Counsels for accused persons have submitted that whereas Sh.Vijender Solanki has been examined as witness, he should have been named as accused person as he had admitted of giving certain names of his known persons to be shown as members of the society and had also signed on the affidavit. But this is not the stage when a witness is to be summoned as accused on the basis of his statement made to IO u/s 161 of Cr.PC.
32. It was revealed during investigation that forged and fake documents prepared by accused Ashutosh Pant (A.7) were submitted by accused Raj Kumar with RCS office and he was known to accused J.S.Sharma (A.2). The false inspection report of accused U.S.Bhatnagar was put up in the file by accused Raman Kumar Verma (A.3) vide his note dated 23.01.04 wherein he mentioned that Inspecting Officer had obtained copies of unaudited accounts of society since 30.06.88 , Minutes of AGM dated 16.02.72, list of members of society, MC meeting and last election of the AGM held on 15.09.03, copies of CBI CASE NO.50/08 Page No.30 of 49 CBI VS.NARAYAN DIWAKAR (RAM NAGAR CGHS) registration certificate, Bye-laws etc. and placed the same in the file. The signatures of G.R.Matta have been shown on the copy of forged registration certificate. Sh.G.R.Matta, the then Assistant Registrar (Housing) in the office of RCS has been examined by CBI as PW.2 who denied having signed registration certificate and the Bye-laws, the copies of which have been enclosed by the accused persons which show that records produced on behalf of the society were false and forged. The copy of Bye-laws was also found inconsistent which itself shows its forged nature.
33. It was accused Raj Kumar Samuel(A.6) who was instrumental in fraudulent revival of the society and it was he who had provided false and forged records got prepared by him from accused Ashutosh Pant (A.7) . The note was marked to accused J.S.Sharma proposing revival of the society. Vide his note dated 23.01.04 (D.4/4 & 5), he proposed for issuance of notice to RCS u/s 63(3) of DCS Act for passing quasi judicial order/ proceeding in the matter for setting aside the CBI CASE NO.50/08 Page No.31 of 49 CBI VS.NARAYAN DIWAKAR (RAM NAGAR CGHS) winding up order.
34. Thereafter a letter was written by Reader of RCS to President/Secretary of the society on 27.01.04 with direction to appear in the office of RCS on 10.02.04 at 3.00 p.m. alongwith original records of the society (D.4(ii)/212) but the file of the society was called by accused Narayan Diwakar on 03.02.04 itself, without any reasons, for preparing the noting and without giving any notice to any one and on that date he recorded that Sh.Ashok Secretary of society was present whereas Sh.Ashok Kumar examined by CBI as PW.80 has denied having ever become member or office bearer of Ram Nagar CGHS or ever having visited the office of RCS particularly on 03.02.04. On 03.02.04 accused Narayan Diwakar, being RCS, had directed Reader to send the file to concerned zone for verification of records pertaining to membership , audit and election. He also directed that besides this, the Zonal AR to conduct a sport verification of members at random and submit the report on or before next date of hearing which was fixed for 05.02.04. CBI CASE NO.50/08 Page No.32 of 49
CBI VS.NARAYAN DIWAKAR (RAM NAGAR CGHS)
35. Sh.Ashok Kumar, who was shown as Secretary of society and present before accused No.1 Narayan Diwakar, RCS on 03.02.04, was examined by CBI as PW.80 and he denied that he was Secretary or even member of the society which shows that in fact no procedure was followed by accused No.1 on 03.02.04 and has denied signing the order sheet dated 03.02.04 (page 6/N of D.4). The order has been noted by accused J.S.Sharma (A.2) on 04.02.04 and the detailed note (7/N to 17/N) was put up by Dealing Assistant i.e.Raman Kumar Verma (A.3) through accused No.2 on 05.02.04. Thus, effectively only one day was given to AR (A.2) by RCS (A.1) for spot verification which was practically not possible. The file was again put up by accused Raman Kumar Verma on 05.02.04 in which he mentioned the fact to the effect that society was registered with 14 promoter members and further 115 members were enrolled prior to freeze date i.e.30.06.86 and society had submitted only copies of the application of membership, Minutes of Managing Committee Meeting, affidavit in original in respect of 129 CBI CASE NO.50/08 Page No.33 of 49 CBI VS.NARAYAN DIWAKAR (RAM NAGAR CGHS) members whereupon accused Raman Kumar Verma had recommended for revival of society u/s 63(3) of DCS Act and to approve the final list of 129 members. He had falsely reported in the note that President of society had submitted the relevant records of the society whereas it was found that the person i.e.PW Aditya Vikram (PW.86), who was shown as President of Society, has denied even to be the member of the society or having possession of any records of the society.
36. Accused Raman Kumar Verma did not report anything about the spot verification of members at random by AR, as ordered by RCS on 03.02.04, which indicates that he was aware that no spot verification was ever conducted when he had put up his note to the AR on 05.02.04. Forwarding the note of accused Raman Kumar Verma (A.3)to RCS, accused J.S.Sharma (A.2) AR (SW) mentioned in his note dated 05.02.04 that the spot verification of some of the members, at random, has been done. In fact there is no spot verification report and he has not mentioned as to which member of society he had met at the spot. This CBI CASE NO.50/08 Page No.34 of 49 CBI VS.NARAYAN DIWAKAR (RAM NAGAR CGHS) indicates that his statement to this effect was false and the RCS i.e. Accused No.1 , to whom the note was put up by him, could clearly discern from the note put up to him that no spot verification was in fact done by AR and rather it was clear to him that in such a short period of one day, spot verification of sufficient number of members of the society was not at all possible and the urgency with which the matter was possessed or proceeded by them supplies more reasons to the assumption that such an urgency shown by them, was with an ulterior motive and due to a conspiracy between the accused persons.
37. When the matter was taken up for hearing by RCS (A.1) on 05.02.04 (D.4/18), accused Narayan Diwakar (A.1) again shown presence of Sh.Ashok Kumar, so called Secretary of society, who was examined by CBI and has denied his presence in the RCS office on that date also. The Zonal AR i.e. accused J.S.Sharma, was also shown present during proceeding dated 05.02.04 which makes one to believe that whatever had happened was due to prior meeting of mind between CBI CASE NO.50/08 Page No.35 of 49 CBI VS.NARAYAN DIWAKAR (RAM NAGAR CGHS) accused No.1 & 2 and in fact no such proceeding was conducted on 05.02.04 as Ashok Kumar, so called Secretary of the society, was never present there in the RCS office. When the earlier records of Ram Nagar CGHS were not available to the RCS i.e. Accused Narayan Diwakar on 05.02.04, there was no reason as to why he has stated in his order that winding up order passed by the then Deputy Registrar, had shown that the proper procedure was not followed while winding up the society. He has also noted that during the arguments the Secretary had mentioned that the Deputy Registrar who had passed the order u/s 63 of DCS Act, 1972 was not competent to decide the matter u/s 63 of DCS Act. This observation of accused No.1 is patently false as PW Ashok Kumar has denied having ever been member or Secretary of Ram Nagar CGHS or having attended any such proceedings before RCS on 05.02.04.
38. Accused No.1 Narayan Diwakar also noted in the same order that there was nothing on the record that such powers u/s 63, exercisable by Registrar, were ever delegated to Deputy Registrar and CBI CASE NO.50/08 Page No.36 of 49 CBI VS.NARAYAN DIWAKAR (RAM NAGAR CGHS) this society was wound up without any valid reason. He also noted that society was not given sufficient opportunities either to reply SCN issued or to rectify the shortcomings mentioned in the notice issued by RCS. In fact the evidence has been collected by CBI that vide order No.9(38)/68- Coop./8636-42 dated 18.10.77 issued by Special Secretary (Coop.), Delhi Administration , the powers of Registrar were conferred to Sh.Ashok Bakshi, the then Deputy Registrar and thus it had been fraudulently mentioned by RCS that no such powers were conferred on Deputy Registrar and moreover since the previous file of the office of RCS pertaining to Ram Nagar CGHS was not available to accused No.1, therefore, he could not be in a position of making such an observation which could be made only when the records of the society could have been available before him. He also failed to ensure that the order passed by him regarding physical verification by accused J.S.Sharma (A.
2), AR, which were noted by him on 04.02.04, were in fact not complied with, as there was no physical verification report available in the record. This shows the ulterior reasons for which the order dated 05.02.04 was CBI CASE NO.50/08 Page No.37 of 49 CBI VS.NARAYAN DIWAKAR (RAM NAGAR CGHS) passed by him. These observations of the note sheet dated 05.02.04 have also been noted by him while passing the quasi judicial order No.RCS/013/04/188-93 (i.e.D.26) vide which Ram Nagar CGHS has been revived.
39. While passing the said order, he also directed for completing the pending audit of the society as well as conducting election of the Managing Committee of the society within two months and accordingly his co-accused J.S.Sharma (A.2) being AR had appointed accused P.K.Thirwani (A.5), Sr.Auditor of Audit Branch of RCS to conduct the audit of society who had submitted a report for the period of 1971-72 to 2002-03 in violation of the laid down rules of RCS whereby an Auditor could conduct audit of the society for a period of three years only and it is further stipulated in the rule that audit of the society should be conducted at the registered office of the society whereas in the present case audit was not done by accused No.5 at the registered office of the society. In fact audit report was prepared by him at RCS office itself on the basis of CBI CASE NO.50/08 Page No.38 of 49 CBI VS.NARAYAN DIWAKAR (RAM NAGAR CGHS) documents submitted by accused Raj Kumar (A.6). In his audit report accused P.K.Thirwani has shown existence of bank account of the society with Delhi State Cooperative Bank, Darya Ganj branch, whereas during investigation no such account of the society could be traced with the said bank as shown by D.11 & D.12. Not only this, accused P.K.Thirwani also failed to obtain the signatures of President, Secretary and Treasurer of society on the audit report and in fact he himself wrote names of office bearers in the place meant for their signatures to lend an impression that they were signed by the office bearers of the society and thus, a false audit report was submitted by accused P.K.Thirwani. It has been submitted by his Ld. counsel Sh.S.K.Bhatnagar that in fact the names of President, Secretary and Treasurer have been written by accused No.1 but they were not written in order to mislead and give impression that President, Secretary and Treasurer of the society had signed the same. He has also submitted that it was not the duty of Auditor to verify the position of account of the society with the bank. However, the audit report does not show any diligence exercised by the CBI CASE NO.50/08 Page No.39 of 49 CBI VS.NARAYAN DIWAKAR (RAM NAGAR CGHS) auditor who could at least insist for a certificate from the bank about the existence of the account of the society. Ld. Defence counsel has also submitted that the society was already revived and the approved list of members was already sent to DDA before the audit report was submitted by P.K.Thirwani and thus it cannot be said that accused P.K.Thirwani had played any role in fraudulent revival of the society and sending the freeze list by Office of RCS to DDA. At this stage this argument cannot be given much weightage as the purpose of such false audit report could also be for giving the cover up to the fraudulent revival of the society and sending the freeze list of the members to DDA by RCS office for allotment of land.
40. Sh.Sanjeev Mendiratta, JAO of RCS office, who was appointed as Election Officer by accused Narayan Diwakar (A.1), had given the election report but the same was not found available in RCS office. However, during investigation CBI had recorded his statement as PW.4 wherein he has stated that on receipt of the copy of revival order CBI CASE NO.50/08 Page No.40 of 49 CBI VS.NARAYAN DIWAKAR (RAM NAGAR CGHS) dated 06.02.04 he had signed a letter for dispatching the same to the society but Raj i.e. Accused No.6 Raj Kumar Samuel, who used to visit RCS office frequently and was all the time seen in the company of accused J.S.Sharma (A.2), had received the said letter from PW Sanjeev Mendiratta under acknowledgment. He stated that Raj Kumar had met him 2-3 times in the gap of 10 days and asked him to expedite the election report and on all the occasions he was asked to supply the papers of the society but he did not do so. Therefore, he (PW.4) had got suspicious about the genuineness of the society due to conduct of accused Raj Kumar and had reported this fact to accused No.2 J.S.Sharma who instead of raising the matter with Raj, had rudely directed him to expedite the election report without obtaining documents of the society. Thereupon PW.4 went to the chamber of accused Narayan Diwakar (A.1) and briefed him about this fact and requested him to appoint another Election Officer for the said society but he also declined his request and one or two days thereafter accused J.S.Sharma had again came to his desk and threatened him that he (PW.4) should not CBI CASE NO.50/08 Page No.41 of 49 CBI VS.NARAYAN DIWAKAR (RAM NAGAR CGHS) displease the builder lobby or IAS people, meaning thereby accused Narayan Diwakar and insisted him to give a false election report without any delay. Accused J.S.Sharma had also told him that accused Narayan Diwakar was also interested in the society and therefore, he should expedite the election report.
41. He (PW.4) has further stated that accused Raj had brought list of members of society with UPC tickets affixed on them for having circulated the agenda notice to all the members and he had also brought the proceeding register of the society which contained purported signatures of some members of the society. He has stated that accused J.S.Sharma was right hand man of accused Narayan Diwakar who had got revived many woundup societies during the period when accused Narayan Diwakar was RCS and it was considered in the RCS office that he could get any sort of work done from Accused Narayan Diwakar.
42. After revival, the list of members of society containing CBI CASE NO.50/08 Page No.42 of 49 CBI VS.NARAYAN DIWAKAR (RAM NAGAR CGHS) names of 129 members of the society was sent by accused J.S.Sharma (A.2) to AR (Policy) for onwards submission to DDA for allotment of land (D.20/4). After taking approval of accused Narayan Diwakar (A.1) Sh.Yogi Raj (PW.15) had sent the list to DDA vide letter dated 25.03.04. Even at the time of according approval for sending the list of members of Ram Nagar CGHS to DDA by AR (Policy), accused No.1 Narayan Diwakar again failed to see that the condition of audit as stipulated by him in his order dated 06.02.04 for revival of the society had not yet complied with. During investigation, out of 129 persons, who have been shown as members of the society, 78 persons, including those who were shown as members of Managing Committee, were traced and they all have denied to have ever become the members of the society and they have also denied to have executed the affidavits which are available as D.4(i) and the GEQD opinion is D.46 & 47. Seven persons have been found dead, out of which most of them were found dead even prior to February, 2004 but the affidavits were purportedly executed in their names. Eleven persons could not be traced as their addresses were CBI CASE NO.50/08 Page No.43 of 49 CBI VS.NARAYAN DIWAKAR (RAM NAGAR CGHS) found non-existent and the speed post addressed to them were returned back by the post office are available as D.27 to D.38. The remarks at D. 27, D.28, D.29 & D.35 show that addresses were incomplete, remarks on D.30,D.32,D.36 & D.37 show that no such persons were available at the given address and D.31,D.33, & D.34 show that no such addresses were available in the vicinity. D.38 is the speed post sent at the office address of Ram Nagar CGHS at 14-B, Satya Niketan, Delhi, the report on which shows that no President or Secretary of Ram Nagar CGHS was there. In this respect , the postmen have been examined by CBI u/s 161 of Cr.PC as PW.26 to PW.32. It was accused Raj Kumar who had submitted the false lists of members to RCS office and which was in turn sent to DDA for allotment of land after falsely reviving the society. PW C.B.Arya and Sandeep Sharma, Oath Commissioners have denied having attested the affidavits and they have stated that the affidavits do not contain their signatures and stamp. PW Sandeep Sharma has even stated that he was not Oath Commissioner during 2004 and said affidavits have been fraudulently attested in his name. Records of the stamp vendors about CBI CASE NO.50/08 Page No.44 of 49 CBI VS.NARAYAN DIWAKAR (RAM NAGAR CGHS) the stamp papers on which the affidavits have been made by the accused have been shown as sold to Sh.Ravi Robison (PW.19) who stated that he used to purchase such stamp papers in bulk in the names of cooperative group housing societies for various persons, including accused Ashutosh Pant (A.7). It is alleged that accused Ashutosh Pant (A.7) had forged all those affidavits but GEQD opinion confirmed his handwriting and signatures only on one affidavit i.e. Of Krishna Dhaya which is D.4(i)/48. Accused Ashutosh Pant had also written inspection report as signed by accused U.S.Bhatnagar and GEQD has opined that the report at Q.708 has been written by accused Ashotosh Pant (A.7) which clearly shows his involvement.
43. Ld. Counsel has submitted that except these two writings no other writing has been confirmed by GEQD as the writings of accused Ashutosh Pant. To my mind there is sufficient evidence against accused Ashutosh Pant and he cannot claim discharge on the ground that signatures handwriting on remaining affidavits could not be CBI CASE NO.50/08 Page No.45 of 49 CBI VS.NARAYAN DIWAKAR (RAM NAGAR CGHS) confirmed by GEQD as having been made by accused Ashutosh Pant.
44. Statement of PW.Vijender Solanki has also been recorded by CBI as PW.33 which has revealed that he had agreed to purchase the society and it was accused Raj Kumar (A.6) who had told him that this was a genuine society. It was Raj Kumar Samuel (A.6) who had asked Vijender Solanki (PW.33) to provide his address as registered office of society. He had asked Vijender Solanki to give details of some persons which were supplied by Mr.Solanki but later on when he came to know about fraudulent revival of the society, he had asked accused No. 6 Raj Kumar Samuel to get the names of those persons deleted from the list of members.
45. The Ld. Defence counsel for Raj Kumar Samuel has argued that he was simply working as Postman or courier but not involved as alleged. The facts and evidence discussed above would show that the role of accused Raj Kumar Samuel is not simply of carrying documents to CBI CASE NO.50/08 Page No.46 of 49 CBI VS.NARAYAN DIWAKAR (RAM NAGAR CGHS) the office of RCS, rather he had played active role in fraudulent revival of society and sending list of members to DDA through RCS. Thus, the facts of the case as discussed above, alongwith evidence arrayed by the prosecution, reveal that all accused persons had entered into a criminal conspiracy with each other with a common object to cheat DDA in allotting land in the name of Ram Nagar CGHS on the basis of false list of members and forged documents.
46. Sanction for prosecution of accused Jitender Singh Sharma (A.2), Raman Kumar Verma (A.3), Uday Shankar Bhatnagar (A.
4) and Prahlad Kumar Thirwani (A.5) under section 19 of P.C.Act, as obtained by CBI from competent authority, are available with charge sheet. Since accused Narayan Diwakar had retired from Government Service, therefore, no such sanction was required to prosecute him.
47. In view of above discussion of facts and evidence arrayed by the prosecution to prove the case, I find that a prima facie CBI CASE NO.50/08 Page No.47 of 49 CBI VS.NARAYAN DIWAKAR (RAM NAGAR CGHS) case to frame charge u/s 120 B r/w Section 420/468/471 r/w section 468 IPC, Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of P.C.Act, 1988 is made out against accused Narayan Diwakar (A.1), Jitender Singh Sharma (A.2), Raman Kumar Verma (A.3), Accused Uday Shankar Bhatnagar (A.4), Prahlad Kumar Thirwani (A.5), Raj Kumar Samuel (A.6) and Ashutosh Pant (A.7). Besides, a prima facie case to frame charge for substantive offence u/s 15 r/w Section 13 (1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 is made against accused public servants Narayan Diwakar (A.1), Jitender Singh Sharma (A.2), Raman Kumar Verma (A.3), Uday Shankar Bhatnagar (A.4) and Prahlad Kumar Thirwani (A.5). The prima facie case to frame charge for substantive offences u/s 468 and 471 r/w Section 468 IPC against accused Uday Shankar Bhatnagar (A.4) and Prahlad Kumar Thirwani (A.5); u/s 420 and 471 r/w section 468 IPC is made out against Raj Kumar Samuel (A.6) and substantive offences u/s 468 IPC against accused Ashotosh Pant (A.7) are also made out. I, therefore, direct that the charge be framed against all accused persons accordingly.
CBI CASE NO.50/08 Page No.48 of 49
CBI VS.NARAYAN DIWAKAR (RAM NAGAR CGHS)
48. For reasons discussed above, the applications of accused Narayan Diwakar (A.1) and Jitender Singh Sharma (A.2) praying for their discharge merit dismissal.
49. It is clarified that nothing in this order shall be taken as comments on the merits of the case.
Announced in the open ( R.P.PANDEY )
Court on 22.05.12 SPL.JUDGE, CBI (01),
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CBI CASE NO.50/08 Page No.49 of 49
CBI VS.NARAYAN DIWAKAR
(RAM NAGAR CGHS)